An early Christmas present for Peak Oil skeptics

[GliderGuider]

Here's an absolutely astonishing compendium of virtually ever straw man, boogeyman, misdirection and economy of truth in play on the denialist side of the Peak Oil debate. I am breathless with admiration. Have fun, and don't say I never gave you anything.

The Recurring Myth of Peak Oil

Predictions of global oil production peaking, and then running out, have been around almost as long as oil was discovered in the second half of the 19th century. Time and again, such dire predictions turned out to be false, largely because of the Peak Oil’s apparently sound but actually deceitful logic: while it is true that, as Peak Oil maintains, oil is a finite natural resource that is bound to run out some day, it does not follow, again as Peak Oil argues, that therefore oil is or must be running out soon.

A major flaw of Peak Oil is that it is based on a static, or technology-neutral, assumption: it implicitly assumes that limits to oil are set as natural, innate, and immutable. Yet, limits to oil, like those to most other resources, are determined as much (if not more) socially as they are naturally. Research, development, and technological advances have made (and will continue to make) both the amounts of oil reserves and of oil production much more fluid or elastic than perceived by the champions of Peak Oil.

Another equally-flawed proposition of Peak Oil is that it implicitly views the limits of oil supply independent of substitutes or alternative sources of energy. These include solar, wind, non-food bio-fuel, and nuclear energies. They also include natural gas. Further, they include “unconventional” oil: Tar Sands, Heavy Oils, and Oil Shale. Although, with the exception of natural gas and nuclear technology, the use of these substitutes is sill quite expensive, and therefore, limited, technological advances are bound to reduce their cost and increase their sue.

Viewed in conjunction with the vast pool of substitutes, both actual and potential, oil limits would loom much wider than when they are considered in isolation from such energy alternatives. The constantly evolving newer and more efficient technologies are bound to further expand those limits far beyond the narrow, “natural” limits set by the Peak Oil theory.

on edit: jazzed up the title a bit

[lostnotforgotten]

1. Technology Neutral - Not True - the East Texas Oil Field And North Sea

were both developed and pumped without any government interference using the best technology available.

Both oil fields are now in terminal decline; both oil fields followed a very similar production, peak, and decline curve,

The argument that Peal Oiler's discount the effects of technology is a Red Herring and the East Texas and North Sea fields are proof.

[GliderGuider]

2. Yep, that's a biggie all right.

Another is the blithe inclusion of oil shales as reserve equivalents of crude oil.

There are really too many such misstatements to make any comprehensive deconstruction of the article readable -- which was probably one of the objectives.

[The Croquist]

5. The effects of technology are on the world not individual fields

The article mentions"

Shell (RDS.A) is currently analyzing and evaluating the well data of their own find in the Gulf of Mexico to determine next steps. This find is rumored to be capable of producing 100 billion barrels. Operating in ultra-deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, the Perdido spar will float on the surface in nearly 8,000 ft of water and is capable of producing as much as 130,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day.

That is an example of better technology.

The bottom line is that 2008 will almost certainly break the 2007 record for most crude pumped which broke the 2006 record which broke the 2005 record and so on.

[GliderGuider]

6. Breaking records

Price yes, production, not so much.



Green line is price, red is production volume. Looks like a production plateau to me.

[tama]

3. Peak oil happened in 1979

"World energy production per capita from 1945 to 1973 grew at a breakneck speed of 3.45 %/year. Next from 1973 to the all-time peak in 1979, it slowed to a sluggish 0.64 %/year. Then suddenly —and for the first time in history — energy production per capita took a long-term decline of 0.33 %/year from 1979 to 1999."
http://dieoff.org/page224.htm

The macroeconomic history since PO 1979 can be summarized as massive debt bubble overshooting to make rich richer and poor poorer, the bubble that is now bursting.

[The Croquist]

4. Since when has peak oil been about per capita?

If it was it would be better titled "peak per capita oil".

[tama]

9. "Peak Oil"

is not a dogma but an attempt to understand what is really going on, to understand the most basic fundamentals of life, and most importantly, to find a sustainable way of life. At least that is how I see it.

The peak/capita has been known for a long time, I agree that perhaps too much attention has been given to the peak global production and too little for the even bigger picture, but it's live and learn and adapt.

[lutherj]

7. From my reading the most common arguments used against the peak oil

theory are 1) enhanced oil recovery techniques (EOR), and 2) unconventional oil (tar sands, oil shale, etc.). Rarely do I see anyone argue that alternative sources of energy will save us.

As for EOR, Matt Simmons, who owns the largest independent oil finance company and specializes in financing oil service companies and technologies, states that he has seen nothing in terms of new technologies coming through the pipeline. All the so-called new technologies are now decades old, and rather than extending the life of an oil field, rather they accelerate the production and decline of the oil.

As for unconventional oil, it is estimated that the Alberta tar sands will peak at a rate of about 5 mb/d to 7 mb/d somewhere in the next 15 to 20 years. If we are at peak oil now, world production of conventional oil could well have fallen twice that amount in that time frame.

I don't know a much about the oil business, but for me this graph from the Energy Bulletin pretty much states the problem:

[Javaman]

8. Meh, who cares. oil is finite. get around that. nt

[tama]

10. All fossile fuels and uranium

are finite.

Without going to minor details, sustainable way of life can be based only on photosynthesis, Father Sun and Mother Earth having wild sex giving birth to all life.

[GliderGuider]

13. Careful, there!

Next thing we know you'll be arguing against human exceptionalism and claiming that we ultimately have to follow the same thermodynamic laws as every other species.

Heretic!

[tama]

14. Guilty as charged

so will the Holy Inquisition of Holy Cornucopianism give this heretic witch their best inquisitive treatment?

[The Croquist]

17. Solar power is finite too.

It's a long time coming (billions of years) but I think peak oil is 100 plus years away as well and uranium is longer still.

A better question might be "cheap" oil. That may already be over but I'm not even sure of that.

Sooner or later we will figure out fusion and eventually solar and wind will become cheaper then oil.

I still think our biggest problem is population.

[GliderGuider]

18. You really think oil production rates will keep rising for 100 years?

What's your support for that belief?

[tama]

19. Birth and death

are dialactical (codependent) opposites. From dead stars new stars are born, but for human scale on this planet, multigenerational thinking seems modest and responsible scale.

As for your other opinions, let's just say that they are not well informed.

[GliderGuider]

11. It seems to be important for some people to believe that nothing's going wrong.

They sure put a lot of effort into denying the obvious.

[Javaman]

12. There was a great blog a few years ago...

it involved a couple driving across america and getting peoples opinions regarding peak oil.

The best one they caught on video. It was a woman filling up her massive SUV. They asked her what would she do if there was no more gas for her car?

She blanched and back peddled into complete denial.

they reminded her that oil was a finite resource.

the woman didn't know what finite meant.

They explained it to her. she was speechless.

this is a very very small example of what is out there.

it is truly terrifying.

There will be those who are prepared, there will be those who are sort of prepared and then there will be the ones that panic.

[phantom power]

15. "the woman didn't know what finite meant."

If there is a loving god...

oh, never mind.

[tama]

16. And those that panic

will make their everything to hurt those that are sort of prepared (no one is really prepared and cannot be), so there is still good reason to try to reason. For the good of all of us.

[kristopher]

20. Article is good discussion.

"...although the Peak Oil theory is not false in saying that there are limits to oil production, it does not explain much. In a real sense, it is a truism. It explains neither the current energy crisis nor any of the past ones. Nor can, therefore, its dire predictions about future global oil production be trustworthy..."

It is noteworthy that the criticisms of the article amount to little more than nit-picking. The meat of the arguments are going unchallenged here.

Thanks for sharing.

[GliderGuider]

21. I figured you'd like it...

[kristopher]

22. Sounds familiar doesn't it? nt

[tama]

23. Where's the beef?

I read the whole thing and found nothing worth of commenting. So enlighten us for discussion's sake, where's the beef?

Forinstance, there is no single "Peak Oil Theory", but a community of people discussing and self-educating and taking steps towards responsible way of life. King Hubberts theory that peak in findings proceeds peak in production is not challenged in any way by the article, it's just empirically verified and common sense. There is a lot of discussion what is the amount of remaining reserves (+future finds) and PO community has been agreeing together with all other sensible creatures that this would be really nice to know in order to start making rational decisions on a realism based time schedule.

But no, until this date the official cornucopian dogma has been the economically dogmatic view that "demand creates supply" (EIA and IEA) - which the article does not subscribe to in expressis verbis but is however tainted with in it's belief in Deus ex Machina.

[kristopher]

24. I excerpted the primary fallacy in my post.

And the secondary fallacies are listed well in the Common Dreams article.

pikku oiruwa "doguma" desuyo...

[tama]

25. You mean this:

"...although the Peak Oil theory is not false in saying that there are limits to oil production, it does not explain much. In a real sense, it is a truism. It explains neither the current energy crisis nor any of the past ones. Nor can, therefore, its dire predictions about future global oil production be trustworthy..."

Perhaps it's too much to ask that PO offers all the answers to "Life, Universe and Everything"? To the questions that the answer is 42 and then that the question is wrong?

But if it is for mere explanations inside this or that paradigm, you need to actually fraze the questions in need of further explanations, inside this or that paradigm. Merely claiming that there are no explanations is bit too easy. The PO discussions I've been involved with, leave seldom nothing out, even though they don't offer ready and easy answers to most fundamental questions about human existance.

On the other hand, the "truism" and practical consequenses of, are often more than enough to bear...

[kristopher]

26. Human existence? I'm talking about energy and social policy. nt

[tama]

27. What's the difference? nt